Religious Debate

[Halsu]

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number...

Inquisition was referred to only as an example that Christian religion can be used just as badly as Muslim religion often is, that the difference between the two is not as big as some wish it to be. It's a great thing that current leaders are so moderate that there actually are no Christian countries anymore (except for maybe Vatican), but rather countries ruled by secular rules, even if the majority of the population is Christians.

their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler,

I think this has been said many times, but Hitler was a Christian (though some say less so in private than in public), and Germany was a country with a Christian majority in the 40's just like it is today. Christian rhetoric was used to justify what was done to the Jews. Nazi Germany was built on Christian moral, he said (bolds mine).

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."[12]

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."[13]

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H...eligious_views

Horse doo-doo!!

It's funny how Christians are accused of not being able to think for themselves yet the information you put out seems like it's carved out of the same "atheist rant and rave handbook."

Well, if you were adamant that moon was cheese, you'd say the same thing to us moon-rockists ;-)

You say you are threatened because of religion? You mean I have that much power over you because I'm "religious?" Why? The Middle East terrorism?

No. As i've tried to say earlier, my worries are more in using religion as a basis for laws, education etc. I'm not too worried about terrorism to be honest, be that muslim, christian, atheist or whatever brand, largely because of where i happen to live of course. And no, your personal beliefs do not threaten me in any way.

I have you know 99% of the terrorism that goes on in that region is NOT religiously motivated (regardless of what some news source wants to brainwash you with). That's right...I said the unthinkable. lol Truth is the motivation behind terrorism is just good ol' NATIONALISM!!

Yep, that's mostly true. Especially the terror acts in war zone are probably much more about politics than religion, even if the two are intertwained.

As far as nationalism goes, i tend to think nations are overrated. Sure, it's nice to belong to a club, but in many ways it's pretty silly that there are borders at all.

Religion is basically just a subcomponent of nationalism. Just about all these terrorist leaders are secular non-religious tyrants who use religious rhetoric to stir up and terrorize both secualr and religious individuals. In most cases this is done in areas that are "occupied" by foreigners.

Yep, as far as the leaders are concerned. But the terrorists themselves pretty often have strong religious beliefs, and they see their acts as holy deeds.

Your Osama Bin Ladens and Saddam Hussains are (or were) no more religious than Bob Sanders is Presbyterian...lol

My impression: Saddam wasn't, Laden was.

BTW, As unpleasant as Saddam and his regime were, by definition he was the leader of a country, not a terrorist.

[Ian-T]

Because religion has saved no one?

Hmm...but then one can argue that "religion" has killed no one either.

[Halsu]

I honestly think both you and Bob have more self esteem problems that most of the Christian people I know. I don't arrive to this conclusion based on your forum name, but simply on the way you need to make sure to display your intellectual superiority by trampling on other people's beliefs. It is a common pattern of behavior for people with deeply seated issues to display them by overcompensating. It is a form of self defense.

I honestly do not recognize myself from that description.

Now, don't take me wrong. I think you are not as bad as Bob from my relatively limited experience talking to both of you. But I do think you feel something is lacking in your life which you haven't yet been able to fulfill. If it makes you feel any better, all of us are like that (and those who don't feel this way are merely hypnotized and oblivious to their own reality.)

I don't feel anything lacking in my life, except free time and more sleep right now (been a busy week). I feel pretty okay and complete overall. And no, i do not think i'm hypnotized either.

The natural state of man is to be close to God, and to seek this closeness to the Creator. People (even family) are bound to let you down. The flesh is fraught with pain, and everything that blooms must also wither.

I regard humans, myself included in much higher regard than that. Everything is pretty great, most of the time. No god needed.

Regarding morality, all I have said is that what you define as morality is not true morality. A set of rules which are bound to change based on society's convenience is not what I would call moral truths. What is right and what is wrong is and has always been the same because it was established by our Creator. If in 400 years it becomes advantageous to society (perhaps because of a complete depletion of natural resources in an overcrowded planet) to dispose of human beings and recycle them for food merely for the survival of the human race as a whole, does that make this type of behavior moral? Of course not. Would you live in a society which sacrifices personal rights for the sake of social preservation? Of course not. Yet, according to your definition of morality, those set of values would be moral, since society would make them so because of practical considerations.

There are no moral truths, other than what we make ourselves.

As far as the society defining the morale goes, it's not at all like you think, a matter of convenience. A society consists of individuals, each of which has their own interpretation of moral, what's right and wrong. That moral largely depends on their surroundings, the society they live in and their upbringing, and as such one can say it's a product of those. But it's not an one way street - each individual also contributes to the moral views of the society. You do, i do, Bob does, Ian does and so on. It's a sum of all of us, it in itself has no desired direction or motives.

I think Bob is even more scared and irrational than you are (by his own admission.) Fear breeds irrationality, and irrationality (I hope you will agree) is never a good thing. You, on the other hand, have a much more controlled personality, at least that's the way it appears to me.

I don't really see Bob as being scared, and especially not irrational - to me he seems rather intelligent and logical. Perpetually angry occasionally sounds pretty accurate though. I think what most see as rudeness and impoliteness is essentially just honesty. He says what he thinks, no sugarcoating applied.

That's often not very productive, of course ,-)

Does the fact that God and an eternal life satisfy a very basic human yearning invalidate those ideas? Or is it the other way around (do we yearn for God and eternal life because those qualities have been embedded in us by our Creator)?

Occam again...

Religion has been used like that not because God is false, but because morality is a very substantial part of the human psyche, and societies of the past most often regulated their morality through religious values. Therefore, appropriation by a government of religion was the easiest way to enact control over their people.

But this is of course a thing of the past (at least in any Christian country that I know of.)

Yep, and it's great that it is. I hope i can do my little part to keep it that way. It's not a given. And of course, i.e. some Muslim countries still do that.

[quote]That, and the fact that psychopaths feel entitled to do as they please without any prospect of accountability. They feel above good and evil, which of course demonstrates the fact that it is impossible for a psychopath to believe in God.[quote]

But doesn't what you said just make your previous claim "also know that true psychos don't like either Church or the idea of God because the simple prospect of accountability terrifies them. In a sense, they have a very high stake in denying the existence of God at all costs" wrong??

Psychopaths, according to your definition of morality, are simply statistical aberrations with completely subverted moral constructs (with respect to normal moral rules.)

Yep, you could say they are.

I am surprised that you so bluntly resort to demagogy above, when you say: "Are you implying Muslims never do good things?" Where did I say such a thing?

It went like this:

1. DrBenway said: "Church can also help psychos live out their psycho, head-in-the-clouds, churchy fantasies."

2. Bob said: "And mix that with that fact that most of these fanatics value a book my than their own family... and you have the makings of a suicide bomber,"

3. You said: "I think you are talking of the wrong religion, bud. Countless of Christian missionaries have given their lives to help others"

From your statement we can deduct that you claim that:

A) "Psychopaths who live their churchy fantasies and value a book over their own family, and as such are potential suicide bombers" = Muslims, not Christians.

B) "People who give their lives to help" = Christians, not Muslims.

I know many muslims who happen to be good people. However, Bob does nothing but talk of his fear of Christianity.

We talk about Christianity most because A) most of us live in countries where Christians are a majority and B) there are no Muslims participating in this discussion, as far as i know.

Don't you think it is funny that he has nothing to say about Islam but he concentrates all his invectives against Christianity instead, when it is a well known fact that acts of terrorism inspired by religious intolerance is an area where Islam completely eclipses all other religions of the world (including Christianity) with a ratio of about 1000 to 1?

How do you calculate that ratio?

Number of terrorist acts, or number of deaths? World wide, or in USA for example? What time period?

We get a different ratio with all of these, none of which is anywhere near 1 in 1000. The only year when it may have been remotely close to that, was 2001, because of the exceptionally high death toll in 911.

You are yourself very fond of extracting conclusions based on statistical data. What does that tell you?

It tells me that you either didn't read any statistics, can't read statistics, or deliberately distort them to make a point.

The fact is that there are no Christian terrorists. There simply are terrorists which happen to consider themselves Christian.

Wrong. Most of the examples i linked to were made specifically in the name of Christian beliefs.

And if you ever hear of a terrorist who claims to base his acts of hate on the Christian faith, then you know he is not only a murderer, but also a liar.

What a convenient way to make it go away, in your imagination at least ;-)

Christianity is not a religion of hate, no matter how much you twist things around. Christ's message is one of love for all of humanity. Whether people who consider themselves to be Christian (both individual people and also full governments) have followed this message is another story.

It's all a matter of interpretation, everyone has their own. I like yours quite a lot, it's rather benign.

I truly think you need to move for a few years to a different part of the world to fully appreciate the difference and gain a better appreciation of the degree of freedom you enjoy in your "Christian" society.

I appreciate it plenty. And i try to make my best that that freedom will never be reduced, but preferably the opposite.

to be continued...

[Halsu]

If more people read the Bible and the work of genuine philosophers like Kant, and less of that self complacent garbage pushed out by human rats like Richard Dawkins, I believe not only there would be less atheists, but also less people angered and confused by the idea that some of their fellow men may have faith in God.

It seems you should try actually reading Dawkins. I'm pretty sure you haven't. Calling him garbage pushing human rat is, well, simply blatantly ignorant.

In the other hand, i admit i've never read Kant, and i probably should. Could you suggest any specific book for me?

Only 41% of people claimed to believe in God in Finland in 2005 (and I am sure that percentage is even lower today.) I thought a majority was defined to be over 50%.
In any case, how do you feel oppressed? Does your government prohibit women to drive or show their faces in public? Are women accused of adultery, many times falsely, executed publicly? Are people who stray away from Christianity condemned to death? I'd just like to know why you feel so oppressed.

Nope, overall we have it pretty well here, and it's going in a good direction as you guessed.

There's still oddities, like separation of church and state - we do not have that. Large majority of Finns are Lutherans, on paper at least (me included), and we pay taxes to the state church, for example. Individuals can resign, but taxes are mandatory for all companies. Religious communities have some other priviledges too. Blasphemy is still illegal here, which is pretty unbelievable in the 21st century.

And of course the rest of the world affects me too. And there things are much more dire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrim...sts#Modern_era

And then there of course are the attempts to suppress or divert the progress of Science: religions have been excellent at that, and are still trying.

Physical violence or dialectical violence? As you know words are very powerful weapons, and honestly I have lost all respect for Bob (unless he shows a sincere change of heart) since his gratuitous blasphemy tirade the other day.

It's of course your right to feel any way you do. But your beliefs have no more special protection here than anyone else's. And they shouldn't.

[Halsu]

The penalties are different, the severity of the damage caused is different.

Yes, but that is a matter of quantity, not quality. And i think you're also in error about the ratios we're talking here.

They are fighting CIVIL WARS, RIGHT NOW! Just as many "Christian terrorists" are fighting civil wars? Really?

I already gave you two examples that are happening right now, that are not far from it at all: Northern Ireland and North East India.

[Halsu]

I understand where you are coming from, because your attitude is quite prevalent (in present day U.S.A., or at least the part of the U.S.A. where I live.) I can't tell you how many times I have been ridiculed by "tolerant" folks who have the same type of attitude as you and Bob do. This has happened at work even. In a sense, Christians have become the last bastion of intolerance and ridicule in many parts of the U.S.A. It's not OK to make fun of anybody based on physical appearance, sexual orientation, or place of origin (all of these things which I think are positive.) However, Christians are fair game.

For the record, i meant ALL religions. Camembert is christians, gouda is muslims, emmenthal is hindus and so on. Note on your list that none of the things you listed are beliefs: name some belief that it's not OK to make fun of, except religious beliefs?

The trendy and fashionable thing is to be an atheist and to selectively laugh at people with any sort of belief not condoned by mainstream pop culture. I say "selectively" because I have yet to see any of these people ridicule a muslim with the same zest with which they ridicule our Christian faith. I assume this is as much a result of self preservation as it is of a complete lack of balls and intellectual honesty.

See above. Also, i'm not trying to make fun of anyone as much as i'm trying to solve a puzzle i do not understand.

I do reserve the right to make light of any beliefs, any time though.

I don't understand very well this phenomenon to be honest. I think it is just a reaction, a violent swing of the pendulum in a society which for centuries was in its great majority Christian. Such dramatic swings of the pendulum are quite common.

Or, maybe they just really have come to the conclusion those beliefs are ridiculous? In that case, the pendulum may never swing back.

Since I detect a very strong scent of disapproval for my faith in your words, and a complete disbelief in the fact that somebody capable of tying his own shoes may fall prey to believing in such nonsense as the idea of a God

Not disbelief at all. I personally know Mensa members who believe in God. I, as said, certainly do believe that very intelligent and reasonable people can believe in God. I'm just bewildered how this is possible.

I invite you to read the works of people like Immanuel Kant, in particular Kritik Der Reinen Vernunft (Critique of Pure Reason.) This way you might gain a sense for the reasons one of the most brilliant intellects of all time could ever be compelled to believe in God. I think this would do you much good, but I must warn you that that particular work is very dense and hard to understand. Not an easy read at all! But very challenging and rewarding.

Okay, i'll try to do so. Earlier, i asked for a suggestion for a book, but it seems you already had given one. I will try to get it and read it, but for the time being, do you think this wikipedia's walkthrough, which seems pretty thorough is accurate and inclusive enough to get the gist of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

Since you have been honest with me, let me be very honest with you too: I think you are a good person beneath this veneer of self satisfaction in your intellectual superiority that you keep exhibiting in your posts, but I also think you are very misguided. I think you are too arrogant and not humble enough. I invite you to be a little more respectful and less condescending, especially in matters in which you show such lack of understanding.

I've honestly tried to be as polite as i can. But i cannot force myself to respect faith. In my opinion, faith (if defined as a conviction so strong that it defies proof or the lack of it) is the biggest danger that mankind faces right now. And by this, i do not only mean religious faith, but all other kinds as well.

As for the lack of understanding, could you specify what you mean?

[Halsu]

Why don't you name those organizations?

Maybe you should have read the links on my message you replied to?

****

Here's a little reality check:

According to wikipedia, in the last ten years there have been two major Muslim terrorist attacks in Europe, Madrid and London. Combined death toll: 243 people. There's been one major Christian terror act, in Norway, resulting in 77 deaths. Hardly a 1 to 1000 ratio, now is it? Most of terrorism in Europe wasn't religious.

"In 2009, a Europol report also showed that more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last three years were, in fact, carried out by non-Muslims."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Norway

I'll maybe try to find numbers for the USA later - it looks like there the number is similar, but smaller as there haven't been any major attacks since WTC (Anthrax threat was probably the worst - that was anti-abortion, BTW) . The point is, the change of dying in a muslim terrorist attack outside a war zone is in reality probably less than the chance of getting struck dead by a lightning.

The 2001 attacks were horrible and spectacular, there was a great loss of life and this shock easily biases our view. It makes the threat look bigger than it is in reality - which just what the terrorists wanted.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

I agree. No where can you find a "Christian" equivalent of this:

Gaza's elected Islamist rulers crack down on secular community
After nearly four years of Hamas rule, the Gaza Strip's small secular community is in tatters, decimated by the militant group's campaign to impose its strict version of Islam in the coastal territory.

Hamas has bullied men and women to dress modestly, tried to keep the sexes from mingling in public and sparked a flight of secular university students and educated professionals. Most recently, it has confiscated novels it deems offensive to Islam from a bookshop and banned Gaza's handful of male hairdressers from styling women's hair.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...community.html


But of course this is way, way back in the dark past.

All the way back in February of 2011, EXACTLY like the Spanish Inquisition.

Exactly!

By the way, the Spanish Inquisition's deeds (although regrettable) have been greatly exaggerated. There existed Inquisitions in many countries in Europe, and many people were imprisoned, tortured, or beheaded in England as well. Mary Queen of Scots being one of them (she being a Catholic in a power struggle against the Anglican ruling class,) and the one whose death was nominally used as a reason for Spain to attempt the invasion of England by launching the ill-fated Invincible Armada.

Religion (Christianity as well) has been subverted many times. Just as liberty and equality (as it was in communist Russia.) The fact is that many more deaths, probably by a factor of 100 to 1, can be attributed to atheistic totalitarian regimes (Stalin and Hitler come to mind, as does the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.) When you view human beings as animals with overdeveloped brains and the only accountability to your actions is the relative notion of morality prevalent in society (which any government can mold and manipulate according to its own interests), it is much easier to commit the sort of attrocities which we were witness to in the last century.

I think the fact that Bob and Halsu are not able to recognize this fact alone (that atheistic totalitarian regimes are responsible for more human misery than any religion ever has created) invalidates their point of view completely. I just don't see any intellectual honesty in ignoring that blatant fact.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

I honestly do not recognize myself from that description.

I recognize myself in your description up to a point because I am not in complete denial. Intellectual honesty starts with oneself.

I don't feel anything lacking in my life, except free time and more sleep right now (been a busy week). I feel pretty okay and complete overall. And no, i do not think i'm hypnotized either.

One thing you are lacking is time, based on your purely materialistic conception of human existence. Do you know how long it takes for a dead body to rot and become a bag of worms?

I regard humans, myself included in much higher regard than that. Everything is pretty great, most of the time. No god needed.

When you were a child, did you also feel better when you did things without the help of your parents? And, what makes you better than a dog or a rat, according to your point of view?

There are no moral truths, other than what we make ourselves.

Every moral statement according to you is relative. As long as we can justify it and make a point for it being good, it is good.

As far as the society defining the morale goes, it's not at all like you think, a matter of convenience. A society consists of individuals, each of which has their own interpretation of moral, what's right and wrong. That moral largely depends on their surroundings, the society they live in and their upbringing, and as such one can say it's a product of those. But it's not an one way street - each individual also contributes to the moral views of the society. You do, i do, Bob does, Ian does and so on. It's a sum of all of us, it in itself has no desired direction or motives.

That's called sociology, not morality. There is an intrinsic set of values which should never change. For example, in Stalinist Russia it was quite common for people to denounce their neighbor purely on suspicion of being against the Party. That type of behavior was moral.

I don't really see Bob as being scared, and especially not irrational - to me he seems rather intelligent and logical. Perpetually angry occasionally sounds pretty accurate though. I think what most see as rudeness and impoliteness is essentially just honesty. He says what he thinks, no sugarcoating applied.

He has stated himself he is scared of "us" many times. He also contradicts himself all the time. Honesty? You can be honest without being an assh0le. I didn't deface and insult his beliefs like he routinely does. But I like it this way, because it goes to show you that atheists can oftentimes be much more intolerant than those they despise because of their "intolerant and irrational beliefs."


[QUOTE=Halsu;429811][quote]That, and the fact that psychopaths feel entitled to do as they please without any prospect of accountability. They feel above good and evil, which of course demonstrates the fact that it is impossible for a psychopath to believe in God.

But doesn't what you said just make your previous claim "also know that true psychos don't like either Church or the idea of God because the simple prospect of accountability terrifies them. In a sense, they have a very high stake in denying the existence of God at all costs" wrong??

Ii didn't express myself correctly, because I mistakenly assume fear of God in all people is natural. What I meant is that a psychopath perhaps doesn't even want to consider the existence of God, because the mere consideration of that possibility would be terrifying to them.

It went like this:

1. DrBenway said: "Church can also help psychos live out their psycho, head-in-the-clouds, churchy fantasies."

2. Bob said: "And mix that with that fact that most of these fanatics value a book my than their own family... and you have the makings of a suicide bomber,"

3. You said: "I think you are talking of the wrong religion, bud. Countless of Christian missionaries have given their lives to help others"

From your statement we can deduct that you claim that:

A) "Psychopaths who live their churchy fantasies and value a book over their own family, and as such are potential suicide bombers" = Muslims, not Christians.

B) "People who give their lives to help" = Christians, not Muslims.

Why do you complicate things so much? When you hear in the news about a suicide bombing, what is the first thing that comes to mind, one of those crazy Christian extremists clutching a crucifix and praying a Hail Mary as he walks into a croud full of women and children as he pulls the switch? Get real, will you?

We talk about Christianity most because A) most of us live in countries where Christians are a majority and B) there are no Muslims participating in this discussion, as far as i know.

The fact is that, since Muslims are known to be far more violent and intransigent than Christians, and also responsible for many more acts of terrorism, you don't consider Muslims because: A) You are scared to offend them enough to make them want to kill you. and B) Since you lack the intellectual honesty to go after those who you know are the actual terrorists, you pick on the easy target instead (the bloody and vengeful Christians.) LOL

How do you calculate that ratio?

It is an estimate, and I think I'm being conservative. Be my guest and do some research, then let me know how much I'm off by.

We get a different ratio with all of these, none of which is anywhere near 1 in 1000. The only year when it may have been remotely close to that, was 2001, because of the exceptionally high death toll in 911.

Correct, and you of course have forgotten about all the citizens which have been killed in their own countries because of religious intolerance (Taliban, anybody?)

It tells me that you either didn't read any statistics, can't read statistics, or deliberately distort them to make a point.

Yes, we have already established that I am a brilliant demagogue and that I am completely unaware of the most rudimentary notion of logical reasoning.

Wrong. Most of the examples i linked to were made specifically in the name of Christian beliefs.

What a convenient way to make it go away, in your imagination at least ;-)

It's all a matter of interpretation, everyone has their own. I like yours quite a lot, it's rather benign.

I appreciate it plenty. And i try to make my best that that freedom will never be reduced, but preferably the opposite.

You are completely out of touch with the world around you. Maybe you need to watch international news channels a little more often, read newspapers, etc.

Christianity is a religion of love, and no matter how imperfect many of the societies built around Christianity have been, you can make a much better argument against any other type of religion or philosophy (especially atheism, as I have already proven before.)

[MalfunctioningHuman]

It seems you should try actually reading Dawkins. I'm pretty sure you haven't. Calling him garbage pushing human rat is, well, simply blatantly ignorant.

I am proud to be ignorant about Dawkin's work attempting to discredit the existence of God. I think I am quite familiar though with his core philosophical theory (the elegant "spaghetti monster" routine.) Let me put it simply: I know that Hawkins cannot prove sh!t, and that he is making a lot of money pushing half baked philosophy down the throats of poor SOBs who don't know any better. Has anybody ever offered you a sh!t sandwhich and passed on the offer? That's pretty much how I feel about Dawkins.

In the other hand, i admit i've never read Kant, and i probably should. Could you suggest any specific book for me?

Why limit yourself? Read them all! I'm afraid that the lack of "spaghetti monsters" might make them a little hard to digest, however.

Nope, overall we have it pretty well here, and it's going in a good direction as you guessed.

There's still oddities, like separation of church and state - we do not have that. Large majority of Finns are Lutherans, on paper at least (me included), and we pay taxes to the state church, for example. Individuals can resign, but taxes are mandatory for all companies. Religious communities have some other priviledges too. Blasphemy is still illegal here, which is pretty unbelievable in the 21st century.

So you are terrified by the lack of separation of church and state? Mortified because part of your taxes go to a church? Oh, the horror! I might not be able to sleep tonight.

And of course the rest of the world affects me too. And there things are much more dire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrim...sts#Modern_era

Yes, discrimination sucks no matter who is the recipient.

And then there of course are the attempts to suppress or divert the progress of Science: religions have been excellent at that, and are still trying.

Of course there have been conflicts between science and religion throughout the ages. Everybody knows about Galileo. But you are missing the bigger picture. Science flourished and thrived by far much more readily in Christian civilizations. The church's role in promoting human knowledge and the advancement of civilization has not been recognized. Monasteries often were centers of knowledge with vasts libraries. Many important scientists were themselves clerics of the Christian church (think of Mendel.)

So of course there have been conflicts between the Christian church and the scientific establishment. But it is not the intolerance-ridden, one-dimensional and simplistic account that you would want us to believe.

It's of course your right to feel any way you do. But your beliefs have no more special protection here than anyone else's. And they shouldn't.

It's not about protection, it is about mutual respect. Blasphemy and ridicule, for example, don't sound like very respectful (or even rational) attitudes, especially coming from someone like you who is concerned about oppression and discrimination (at least when you are on the receiving end.)

To tell somebody: "Wow, I'm so surprised you believe in this sh!t because you don't seem like such a moron at all" is so stupid and so disrespectful, that I think it reveals far more about your attitude than it does about anybody's ideas.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

I've honestly tried to be as polite as i can. But i cannot force myself to respect faith. In my opinion, faith (if defined as a conviction so strong that it defies proof or the lack of it) is the biggest danger that mankind faces right now. And by this, i do not only mean religious faith, but all other kinds as well.

As for the lack of understanding, could you specify what you mean?

Yes, it is obvious that you absolutely lack respect for faith and those who have it. The question is: Why? If I were in your situation, I would probably envy people capable of being both rational and faithful. There is no conflict in that, and I think that's what you will never get. I don't think it's a question of not being intelligent enough, or being too intelligent. Maybe it has to do with a mental attitude of humility. Perhaps you can't accept the fact that there are things beyond our human knowledge, things that defy proof.

[Jim E]

ROFLMAO!!!! He's recommending Richard Dorkins now??!!

That guy is pussy! Weak as piss. I don't know why he even bothers. Saw his doco where he approached various "ministers" of religion - rabbis, evangelists, and so on, apparently intending to humble them with his withering questions and critical insights. Bloody hell, the moron got his ass whipped by everyone he spoke to!

The rabbi treated him with the contempt he deserved, and he reacted by practically kissing the guy's feet! The Baptist evangelist totally overwhelmed him by the force of his personality, and he practically fell to the ground yelling "hallelujah!"

Not much use crusading against religion if you don't have the cojones for the fight.

Still, he made a bunch of money with it, and got to disrespect better people than him under the guise of "research", so that's all that matters.....

"People should read Richard Dawkins".... now I've heard everything.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

That is hilarious. HAHAHA.

The only way I'm reading Dawkins is if they put his collected works in toilet paper form. I'll try to catch his "invaluable insights" between squeezes. LOL

[Jim E]

[MalfunctioningHuman]

Inquisition was referred to only as an example that Christian religion can be used just as badly as Muslim religion often is, that the difference between the two is not as big as some wish it to be. It's a great thing that current leaders are so moderate that there actually are no Christian countries anymore (except for maybe Vatican), but rather countries ruled by secular rules, even if the majority of the population is Christians.

What you don't seem to get is that this is not about religion, but about government. I already showed before how the worst governments as far as their record regarding human rights are actually atheistic totalitarian regimes. Atheism is just as much a religious system (the absence of a God) as what we normally consider as religions. The difference is that in atheistic regimes, the government can exert much more control over their citizens. because they are now reduced to material beings without a soul. Faith in God is often turned into devotion for the state and its quasi-divine rulers. I'm sure you saw the ceremonies for the burial of the North Korean leader recently. What did you see in those people but the most irrational and exacerbated religious fervor?

On top of this, Jesus very clearly stated "My Kingdom is not of this world." He expressly refused to be the political messiah that a part of his followers wanted him to be. Do you see any importance in these facts, or do they (as I fear) pass unnoticed to you?

[cgbier]

Science flourished and thrived by far much more readily in Christian civilizations. The church's role in promoting human knowledge and the advancement of civilization has not been recognized. Monasteries often were centers of knowledge with vasts libraries. Many important scientists were themselves clerics of the Christian church (think of Mendel.)

I think you have your historical facts a bit wrong. Yes, monasteries had and have huge libraries, but the idea behind them was to hide the knowledge from lay people. The catholic church was out to keep a monopoly on education. It wasn't before the age of reformation that secular universities were established and only against heavy opposition from the church.
Arabs have already done complicated surgeries when western doctors still saw a hail Mary as medicine. Algebra was brought to us by the Arabs, Arabs kept the writings of the Greek philosophers (that were banned in the christian world). 400 years before Otto Lilienthal a moslem was already flying in Spain....

You have a problem with the separation between state and church? Why are you complaining about Iran then?

[cgbier]

Halsu, re. Kant: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/sear...ads&query=kant

[Halsu]

By the way, the Spanish Inquisition's deeds (although regrettable) have been greatly exaggerated. There existed Inquisitions in many countries in Europe, and many people were imprisoned, tortured, or beheaded in England as well. Mary Queen of Scots being one of them (she being a Catholic in a power struggle against the Anglican ruling class,) and the one whose death was nominally used as a reason for Spain to attempt the invasion of England by launching the ill-fated Invincible Armada.

To me that sounds like you're making the argument that Inquisition like behavior was not an exception but a rule. I see that as an affirmation of my point, not a refution of it.

Religion (Christianity as well) has been subverted many times. Just as liberty and equality (as it was in communist Russia.) The fact is that many more deaths, probably by a factor of 100 to 1, can be attributed to atheistic totalitarian regimes (Stalin and Hitler come to mind, as does the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.)

Once more, Hitler's regime was a Christian one, not atheist. In fact, atheists were dicriminated in Nazi germany. But when it comes to totalitarian regimes being bad, i of course agree - they suck regardless of the stance to religion, in my opinion.

When you view human beings as animals with overdeveloped brains and the only accountability to your actions is the relative notion of morality prevalent in society (which any government can mold and manipulate according to its own interests), it is much easier to commit the sort of attrocities which we were witness to in the last century.

I'd argue it's not. The societies with the most humane morality in the world today are all run on secular, not religious basis.

[Halsu]

I recognize myself in your description up to a point because I am not in complete denial. Intellectual honesty starts with oneself.

So, you display your intellectual superiority by trampling on other people's beliefs because you have deeply seated issues, as a form of self defense? If that's how you really see yourself, i feel sorry for you.

One thing you are lacking is time, based on your purely materialistic conception of human existence. Do you know how long it takes for a dead body to rot and become a bag of worms?

Not long. Why do you ask?

When you were a child, did you also feel better when you did things without the help of your parents? And, what makes you better than a dog or a rat, according to your point of view?

Yes, i did indeed feel great for accomplishing things on my own. Is there something wrong with that? And no, i don't think i'm better than dogs or rats per se, we're all animals that have gone through equally long evolutionary development. Us humans are the champions of abstract thought though, gotta give us points for that.

Emotionally, it's a completely different story: i do value humans in way higher regard than other species. But at the same time i understand that i'm biased in this regard, because i'm a human.

Every moral statement according to you is relative. As long as we can justify it and make a point for it being good, it is good.

Not exactly, but close. That applies to an individual: if he/she comes to a conclusion that something is "right" or "wrong" based on justification X, that's indeed what his or her moral says. You forget that others may, and often do disagree. Every individual has a different set of moral standards.

That's called sociology, not morality. There is an intrinsic set of values which should never change. For example, in Stalinist Russia it was quite common for people to denounce their neighbor purely on suspicion of being against the Party. That type of behavior was moral.

But you earlier said that Jesus changed those "never changing" values? And that condoning slavery and the submission women were not so bad because the times were different?

Why do you complicate things so much? When you hear in the news about a suicide bombing, what is the first thing that comes to mind, one of those crazy Christian extremists clutching a crucifix and praying a Hail Mary as he walks into a croud full of women and children as he pulls the switch? Get real, will you?

Because things ARE more complicated than you seem to think.

The fact is that, since Muslims are known to be far more violent and intransigent than Christians, and also responsible for many more acts of terrorism, you don't consider Muslims because: A) You are scared to offend them enough to make them want to kill you. and B) Since you lack the intellectual honesty to go after those who you know are the actual terrorists, you pick on the easy target instead (the bloody and vengeful Christians.) LOL

Are they really? As i showed earlier, Interpol's statistics show that less than one percent of terrorist acts in Europe were done by muslims. That's much less than their percentage of the population.

It is an estimate, and I think I'm being conservative. Be my guest and do some research, then let me know how much I'm off by.

Already did, see my earlier post.

Correct, and you of course have forgotten about all the citizens which have been killed in their own countries because of religious intolerance (Taliban, anybody?)

Nope, i'm not forgetting them at all. They are an example against religious leadership, not for it.

Yes, we have already established that I am a brilliant demagogue and that I am completely unaware of the most rudimentary notion of logical reasoning.

No. We've just shown that in this one specific instance you're ignorant of the actual statistics, do not understand them correctly, or distort them deliberately. Nothing more.

You are completely out of touch with the world around you. Maybe you need to watch international news channels a little more often, read newspapers, etc.

Trust me, i do. I just don't blindly submit to the Fox News' version of the reality.

Christianity is a religion of love, and no matter how imperfect many of the societies built around Christianity have been, you can make a much better argument against any other type of religion or philosophy (especially atheism, as I have already proven before.)

Nope, you have not proven it, sorry.

[Dr. Benway]

Hmm...but then one can argue that "religion" has killed no one either.

Only if you were being cute.

[Halsu]

I am proud to be ignorant about Dawkin's work attempting to discredit the existence of God. I think I am quite familiar though with his core philosophical theory (the elegant "spaghetti monster" routine.) Let me put it simply: I know that Hawkins cannot prove sh!t, and that he is making a lot of money pushing half baked philosophy down the throats of poor SOBs who don't know any better. Has anybody ever offered you a sh!t sandwhich and passed on the offer? That's pretty much how I feel about Dawkins.

You may feel like that, but the feeling is totally unjustified in my opinion, and your refusal to to actually get yourself acquainted of his works shows that your opinion is based on ignorance, not knowledge.

Why limit yourself? Read them all! I'm afraid that the lack of "spaghetti monsters" might make them a little hard to digest, however.

Looks like a long list of stuff to read. I think i'll start with the Critique of pure reason, not sure when i'll have the time to do so though. You might wish to try "the Greatest show on earth" by Dawkins for starters. No spaghetti monsters there as far as i recall, just well written popular science.

So you are terrified by the lack of separation of church and state? Mortified because part of your taxes go to a church? Oh, the horror! I might not be able to sleep tonight.

No, i'm not terrified by those, annoyed would be a better word.

Yes, discrimination sucks no matter who is the recipient.

Here we wholeheartedly agree.

Of course there have been conflicts between science and religion throughout the ages. Everybody knows about Galileo. But you are missing the bigger picture. Science flourished and thrived by far much more readily in Christian civilizations. The church's role in promoting human knowledge and the advancement of civilization has not been recognized. Monasteries often were centers of knowledge with vasts libraries. Many important scientists were themselves clerics of the Christian church (think of Mendel.)

Cgbier already answered this well, my argument is the same as his.

It's not about protection, it is about mutual respect. Blasphemy and ridicule, for example, don't sound like very respectful (or even rational) attitudes, especially coming from someone like you who is concerned about oppression and discrimination (at least when you are on the receiving end.)

Tell me, should all beliefs be respected in your opinion? Should all beliefs be protected from ridicule?

Think carefully before you answer.

To tell somebody: "Wow, I'm so surprised you believe in this sh!t because you don't seem like such a moron at all" is so stupid and so disrespectful, that I think it reveals far more about your attitude than it does about anybody's ideas.

That's of course not at all what i said, but a straw man version of it. Let me re-iterate: i personally know people who believe in god, that i think are much more intelligent than i am. That's not in any way the same as "not a moron".

But yes, i'm surprised they "believe that sh!t." It's a puzzle to me, and i wish to solve it.

[Halsu]

Yes, it is obvious that you absolutely lack respect for faith and those who have it. The question is: Why? If I were in your situation, I would probably envy people capable of being both rational and faithful. There is no conflict in that, and I think that's what you will never get.

There IS a conflict, and a screamingly obvious one: faith is by definition the rejection of rationality.

Edit: Faith actually has a double meaning, so what i wrote is not entirely accurate. Faith can also be based on previous experience and reason, it can be synonymous to the world trust. For example, i may have perfectly reasonable faith in my friends not lying to me about issue X, even if i have no direct evidence of the truth value of X. This faith is based on previous experience of them being trustworthy towards me. This kind of "faith" i have no problems with.

I don't think it's a question of not being intelligent enough, or being too intelligent. Maybe it has to do with a mental attitude of humility. Perhaps you can't accept the fact that there are things beyond our human knowledge, things that defy proof.

I don't think that's it. I'm accepting uncertainty and lack of knowledge as they are, and i'm doing my best to resist the urge to come up with artificial explanations when there are none.

[Halsu]

That is hilarious. HAHAHA.

The only way I'm reading Dawkins is if they put his collected works in toilet paper form. I'll try to catch his "invaluable insights" between squeezes. LOL

Very mature of you ;-)

[Halsu]

What you don't seem to get is that this is not about religion, but about government. I already showed before how the worst governments as far as their record regarding human rights are actually atheistic totalitarian regimes. Atheism is just as much a religious system (the absence of a God) as what we normally consider as religions. The difference is that in atheistic regimes, the government can exert much more control over their citizens. because they are now reduced to material beings without a soul.

This part is not true, but...

Faith in God is often turned into devotion for the state and its quasi-divine rulers. I'm sure you saw the ceremonies for the burial of the North Korean leader recently. What did you see in those people but the most irrational and exacerbated religious fervor?

...this part is.

On top of this, Jesus very clearly stated "My Kingdom is not of this world." He expressly refused to be the political messiah that a part of his followers wanted him to be. Do you see any importance in these facts, or do they (as I fear) pass unnoticed to you?

Well, that's one interpretation, but not the only plausible one.

[Halsu]

Halsu, re. Kant: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/sear...ads&query=kant

Thanks. That's a lot of printing to do, i hate reading from the screen ;-)